Armed Militiamen Stand Off With Feds In Oregon Wildlife Refuge

By Samuel Miller
Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, North America and Oceania

BURNS, Oregon — Over the weekend, a group of armed protesters seized the remote Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters Saturday after splintering off from a larger protest about ranchers’ rights in the small town of Burns. The armed occupation is being led by Ammon Bundy, an Idaho rancher whose father, Cliven Bundy, led an armed standoff with federal agents in Nevada in 2014 and who has described his supporters as “militia men.”

Protester Ryan Bundy Talks on his Phone in Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. (Photo Courtesy of ABC News)

The FBI said in a statement Sunday that it was working with local and state police to bring a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The activists set themselves up in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge 30 miles southeast of Burns, Oregon, defying the organizers of a rally and march held Saturday in support of two local ranchers who are scheduled to report to federal prison Monday to serve a sentence for arson. Protesters gathered Saturday in Burns to denounce the five-year sentencing of Dwight and Steven Hammond — father-and-son ranchers who were convicted of arson.

Prosecutors accused the Hammonds of committing arson on federal land in 2001 and 2006. The men and their attorneys argued that the fires had been set on their own property: once to prevent the spread of an invasive species of plant and, once in attempt to prevent the spread of a wildfire.

Ultimately, they were found guilty on only two arson counts, which covered the activities, namely setting fires, the Hammonds admitted to. As part of their plea deal, they agreed not to appeal their sentences. Dwight Hammond was sentenced to three months in prison and his son Steven was sentenced to 11 months, both sentences below the mandatory minimum of five years.

Although the Hammonds agreed not to appeal their sentences, the Department of Justice did, getting the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Judge Hogan’s decision and order the Hammonds to return to jail. Both Hammonds are expected to do so on Monday.

Apparently, Ammon Bundy met with Dwight Hammond and his wife in November, seeking a way to keep the elderly rancher from having to surrender for prison. The Hammonds professed through their attorneys that they had no interest in ignoring the order to report for prison.

In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.

Ammon Bundy said the goal is to turn over federal land to local ranchers, loggers and miners. In a video interview with reporters on Saturday that was posted on his Facebook page, Ammon Bundy said the group is standing up against government overreach because the people have been abused long enough.

“I feel we are in a situation where if we do not do something, if we do not take a hard stand, we’ll be in a position where we’ll be no longer able to do so,” he said.

For more information, please see:

ABC News — Feds Monitor Armed Protesters in Oregon but Keep Distance – 4 January 2016

BBC News — Oregon: Armed protest at US government building – 4 January 2016

CNN — Armed protesters refuse to leave federal building in Oregon – 4 January 2016

NBC News — FBI Seeks ‘Peaceful’ End to Armed Standoff at Oregon Federal Building – 4 January 2016

Chicago Tribune — Armed militia, Bundy brothers take over federal building in rural Oregon – 3 January 2016

The Oregonian — Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters – 3 January 2016

Reason.com — Armed Protesters in Oregon Occupy Remote Federal Outpost at Wildlife Refuge After Marching Against Sentence of Father and Son Ranchers – 3 January 2016

Washington Post — Armed men, led by Bundy brothers, take over federal building in rural Oregon – 3 January 2016

ISA News Update: Saudi-Iranian Tensions Could Lead to War

The Middle East’s Leading Rivalry

Sectarian Divisions Threaten the Entire Region

Bitter Rivals

Saudi Arabia’s execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, that country’s leading Shiite cleric, triggered a dramatic rise in tensions between the leader of the Middle East’s Sunni Muslims (Saudi Arabia) and the leader of the world’s Shiite Muslims (Iran).  Already, tensions between these two countries were dangerously high as a result of the fact that they are on opposite sides of the religion-fuelled conflicts in places such as Iraq, Syria and Yemen.  Adding to these tensions in recent years has been Iran’s efforts to develop a nuclear program, which led to last year’s deal between Iran and the international community regarding its nuclear activities (a deal condemned by the Saudis).  Now, as tensions have reached their highest level in recent years, there is a growing possibility of an outright conflict between Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies on one side and Iran and its Shiite partners on the other, a development that has the potential to destabilize the region and the world.

Rising Tensions

Saudi Arabia’s decision to execute the leading cleric among the Shiite minority that inhabits eastern Saudi Arabia was the catalyst for a series of events that have dramatically raised between that country and Iran.  First, the execution of Sheikh Nimr led to major protests in Shiite-populated areas of eastern Saudi Arabia, a region that is already dealing with high levels of instability.  Shortly thereafter, Iran condemned the sheikh’s execution and warned Saudi Arabia that it faced “divine retribution” for this execution.  In scenes reminiscent of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, protestors stormed the Saudi Arabian embassy in Tehran, burning much of it and forcing Saudi diplomats to flee the country.  In response, Saudi Arabia (and later some of its Sunni allies) broke off diplomatic relations with Iran and expelled all Iranian diplomatic personnel from their countries.

Allies for Both Sides

This dramatic increase in tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran is leading to other countries in the region lining up to take sides behind one of these two countries.  For example, the governments of the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan quickly followed Riyadh’s lead and broke off diplomatic ties with Iran.  Moreover, Saudi Arabia’s allies fighting in the civil wars in Syria and Yemen have already expressed their support for its stance against Iran.  On the opposite side, Iran’s allies, such as the governments of Syria and Iraq, as well as the Houthi rebels in Yemen, will certainly move to back Tehran in its showdown with the Saudis.  Meanwhile, a major factor to watch will be the role of outside players in this dispute.  For example, the United States and its European allies have moved to improve relations with Iran in recent months, but this could be jeopardized by this new dispute.  Another outside power, Russia, has found itself allied with Iran in Syria’s civil war and it may move to support Iran in its showdown with Saudi Arabia, once again placing the US and its Western allies in opposition to Russia in a strategic region.

Looking for War?

The biggest threat posed by this dispute is the potential for an all-out conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Initially, the biggest threat will be posed by the likelihood that the proxy wars between the two countries in places such as Syria and Yemen will intensify, while Iran may move to promote Shiite insurgencies in places such as Bahrain and Lebanon.  However, the potential for a direct conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran cannot be ruled out, given the fact that both sides are preparing for just such a conflict.  For Saudi Arabia, King Salman and his government have taken a much harder line towards Iran than their predecessors and are dismayed by the presence of an Iran-backed government in Iraq and the fact that Iran is supporting the Assad regime in Syria and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.  For Iran, hardliners that have been challenged by the moderate government of President Hassan Rouhani see a conflict with their leading rival as a means of restoring their dominant position in Iran.  For the international community, a potential conflict between two of the Middle East’s most powerful states is very disconcerting, given the impact that such as conflict would have on that already-volatile region’s stability as well as on the global economy.  For an already nervous world, the Saudi-Iranian showdown is an inauspicious start to 2016.

Mein Kampf Enters Public Domain, Set to be Republished in Germany

by Shelby Vcelka

Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, Europe

 

BERLIN, Germany–

For the first time since the conclusion of the Second World War, Mein Kampf will be available to the general public in Germany. The manifesto, written by Adolf Hitler in 1925, served as a documentation of his plans to take over Germany and lead the country. After the Allied Powers defeated Nazi Germany in 1945, they handed the copyright of the book over to the German state of Bavaria, where local authorities announced they were banning production of the work to prevent igniting racial tensions in the post war period. Since then, Mein Kampf has been completely out of print within Germany, and its dissemination was made a criminal offense.

A copy of Adolf Hitler’s work, Mein Kampf, from 1940. The work has been banned from Germany since the end of WWII. (Photo courtesy of The Atlantic).

Under German law, a copyright can be held through the life of the author, and 70 years after that person’s death. The work enters into the public domain on January 1st of the following year. In Hitler’s case, those seventy years ended on April 30th, 2015, with Mein Kampf entering the public domain on January 1st, 2016.

Munich’s Institute of Contemporary History is set to publish the new edition of Mein Kampf, with thousands of academic notes, intended to give context to the reader.

The ban’s lift has not been without mixed opinions and criticism. Many accept that times have changed since Mein Kampf was first published, but want an updated introduction and editor’s notes to preface the work. An endnote noting work’s relationship to today’s international politics has also been pushed for, so racial tensions will not be reignited as a result of the new publications.

“Mein Kampf is an important historical document and it should not be erased or forgotten, but it remains important to explain clearly what this work set out to achieve,” commented Philippe Coen, president of the European Company Lawyers Association.

German officials have announced they will limit access to the work amid concerns that neo-Nazi sentiments will arise.  The new editions are set to be released on January 8th.

For more information, please see–

The Atlantic–Who’s Afraid of Mein Kampf?— 31 December 2015

NPR–‘Mein Kampf’ Enters Public Domain; Arguably, Anne Frank’s Diary May, Too— 31 December 2015

BBC– Copyright of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf expires— 1 January 2016

CNN– Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ to be republished in Germany next week— 1 January 2016

Japan and South Korea Reach Agreement on WWII Comfort Women

By Christine Khamis

Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

 

SEOUL, South Korea –

South Korea and Japan reached a settlement on Monday to resolve their long-standing dispute over the women forced to serve as sex slaves for the Japanese army during World War II. The women, otherwise known as comfort women, have been a major point of contention between the two countries since the end of World War II.

In the settlement, Japan issued an apology and pledged to give $8.3 million from its national budget to the South Korean government to set up a fund for the remaining comfort women. The fund will offer services such as medical care to the former comfort women. It is unclear at this time whether the women will receive direct payments from the fund.

Japan has conceded that its military authorities contributed to the enslavement of the comfort women. However, Japan has not admitted to having any legal responsibility for the acts of its military officials. It instead seems to consider the new fund as a humanitarian gesture rather than an effort at making legal reparations.

Tens of thousands of Korean women were forced to act as comfort women to the Japanese during Japan’s colonial rule of South Korea and throughout World War II. Most comfort women who survived World War II lived in silence instead of speaking out because of the stigma surrounding their role as sex slaves. In the 1990s, some of the women finally began to speak out about their experiences. Only 238 South Korean women have come forward throughout the decades. Currently, 46 former comfort women women are still alive.

Former comfort women at the House of Sharing,, a home set up in South Korea for their care. (Photo courtesy of Voice of America)

South Korea says that it will consider the issue of comfort women “finally and irreversibly” settled as long as Japan follows through with its end of the deal. On its own part, South Korea has agreed to negotiate with local civic groups for the removal of a statue of a comfort woman which stands in front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul.

Japan and South Korea’s agreement has already drawn criticism, some of it coming from former comfort women themselves. One such woman, 88 year-old Lee Yong-soo, says that the settlement does not reflect the views of former comfort women. Ms. Lee says that the former comfort women are not looking for money and that they want official reparations from Japan instead.

This is not the first time that Japan has apologized for its treatment of comfort women. In 1993, Japan formally acknowledged and apologized for its use of sex slaves. Japan also created a fund for the comfort women in 1995, financed by private donors. South Korea and some of the remaining comfort women criticized the fund because it did not come directly from Japan’s government. Many of the former comfort women refused to take payments from the fund. The fund was then disbanded in 2007.

Earlier in 2015, President Park of South Korea called for the settlement of the issue of comfort women with Japan by the end of the year. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the start of diplomatic relations between Japan and South Korea.

 

For more information, please see:

Voice of America – Comfort Women Criticize Japan, South Korea Settlement – 29 December 2015

BBC – Japan and South Korea agree WW2 ‘comfort women’ deal – 28 December 2015

The Guardian – Japan and South Korea Agree to Settle Wartime Sex Slaves Row – 28 December 2015

The New York Times – Japan and South Korea Settle Dispute Over Wartime ‘Comfort Woman’ – 28 December 2015